Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?
 

As per the topic of the thread what was your gut feeling having listened to or read the speech of President Bush? Is it a welcome change of strategy? Or do you feel it is just more of the same? Is it not enough or a case of too little and too late?

I'm not to sure myself. An additional 20k troops doesn't seem like a great deal. In fact haven't we in the past seen troop withdrawls and increases over the last few years that reflect similar numbers mentioned here? Given that how can an additional 20,000 make much of a difference?

My other serious doubt concerns the Iraqi government and Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Is he really going to deliver what he has promised to President Bush over the last couple of days? He certainly hasn't done it in the past and I can't see any evidence of him doing it now. He has been a man of many words and little action in my opinion. And don't forget that if it wasn't for that thug Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of thugs and death squads that make up the Mahdi Army Al Maliki wouldn't have been elected PM in the first place. So how on earth he is going to disarm, arrest or pacify them is beyond me?

Looking back when we had Muqtada al-Sadr and his thugs in a corner we had a real opportunity back then to take him out yet we blew it by playing his own game. Now we are paying the price for it. For the first time I am going to say that this is looking like a lost cause, certainly in terms of the original goals that were set it looks that way. Best result now would be to split the country up into 3 and make sure that Al Qaeda cannot establish a base of operations in that region whilst trying to minimise Iran's growing sphere of influence. The only thing worse than invading Iraq would be to effect a complete withdrawl over the next 6-12 months. I don't want to even think about the consequences of that crazy policy.

He didn't say anything new in speech except for the U.S. withdraw is not open ended. He did say something in action by replacing all the top leaders.
I've mixed feelings on the troop escalation. Too little too late? This is a wait and see.

Gut feelings aside,

Chavez sent 30 specialists and 3000 soldiers to Bolivia. If 3,000 soldiers are enough to counter the anti-Morales uprisings and crush Santa Cruz if they ever seceded, 20,000 troops, if they're mostly of the hold-a-gun-point-and-shoot type could come in handy, if put to a good use, of course.

It's a bizzare comparison, true, while Bolivia is larger than Iraq (1,098mil km2 vs 438 thousand km2) it has a much smaller population (8,8mil vs 28,8mil in 2005). Adjusting for the different levels of violence, the proportion of soldiers seems about right, question is if they're of any use at all.

What was really remarkable was Bush assuming his own personal responsibility. This is always commendable and really rare in this world of scape-goatism. One cookie for Bush.

Two alternatives are to attempt to create a pluralist government, for the local standards, with the internal forces balancing each other out but with a probably high degree of violence or to allow the return of a brutal dictatorship, this time shi'ite. Brutal but guarantor of order, both by eliminating the unhappy elements more efficiently and by masking the statistics/closing the society.

I find it to be an 'about time' thing. I've stated all along that I think more troops are needed. Rumsfield smaller, faster, lighter, cheaper army mentallity is great for taking over the country, and it obviously worked like a charm, but when it comes down to it, smaller faster lighter cheaper has no capability to 'hold' said country, or at least not hold it with any sense of security. In the end, nothing replaces manpower.

I am glad Rumsfield is gone since he was chopping military capability in my book, down to a level that is practically irecoverable from. Its a sad day for many military bases.

-S

I'm cautiously optomistic, not because ~21,000 is really a lot of extra troops but the fact they'll be embedding brigades with Iraqi divisions seems like a fairly good idea. There were a couple things that made my ears perk up and they weren't any of the "major" points as the talking heads were disecting the thing, they were:

1) Streamlining the rules of engagement for US forces, which are far too cumbersome at the moment. That didn't seem to get as much reaction as it should have.

2) Interdicting the supplies and insurgents filtering in from Syria and Iran, as well as degrading their support structure. That's an important step because right now in Anbar province there have been multiple reports of Marine units having the enemy "pull a VC" on them and scooting back over the border into Syria after what's left of them disengage. If they can shut down the infiltration/egress routes into Syria that would be extremely helpful.

Those 2 items there could be more important to improving the overall situation than 17,000 troops in Baghdad. The 4,000 extra in Anbar will be helpful as well because prior to that there was an idea to bring down Kurdish Peshmerga to bolster the allied troop strength there. While that would have made sense militarily, but politically it would have eroded some of the good support we're getting from the tribal leaders out there in Anbar who are slowly coming around.


The other reason for some cautious optomism was the new general in charge literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency combat. Some in the MSM were criticizing Bush because this plan goes against what some of the top generals in Iraq are saying they need, but the way I see it (and probably how Bush does) is if they aren't winning then their opinion is less important than it would seem at first glance. I mean if Lincoln would have kept listening to McClellan the Army of the Potomac wouldn't have moved out until 1880 or so...

Until the Iraqis want to start fighting though things aren't going to get better anytime soon. But honestly I think a lot of their reluctance lately has been precisely because of the talk of withdrawl over here; none of them want to be the last guy holding the bag when the Blackhawks lift out the last of our embassy staff. They've heard enough Vietnam analogies and history over the past few years to know what happens to places when the US Congress turns its back on a war.

It is like throwing good money after bad. Our troops have done all they can and need to come on home. It is high time the Iraqi takes control of their country. They have become too dependent on our troops to handle the situation. Time to cut the cord and allow the Iraqi military take on the responsiblity as well as the local law enforcement. Time for them to take their country back that they want so badly. I believe throwing more troops at Iraqi is like throwing a bottle of Wild Turkey at an alcoholic, he will just keep on drinking and drinking!

Despite what the president has requested, if the congress doesn't appropriate said money's to fund those extra 20,000 troops, it would be interesting how Bush can get around it.

I thought with my heart (sometimes my gut gets in the way) that the
speech was smooth and well presented, but then I love my President.
I like the way he can roll with the punches.

The president is showing the world that we care about Iraq without
Saddam ...
that we didn't just mess everything up and get the hell out.

It's getting kind of hard to figure out who the enemy is over there
with tying people to steering wheels and sending them on suicide missions
or letting the prisoners steal cars full of explosives and then laughing as
they push a few buttons on their cell phones.

It's all about the money ...
whoose money is it, anyway? Iran's, Syrian, Saudia, USA ...?

But I got off the subject, uh? I love my country and I love my president.

It was a well thought out and very well presented speech to the
American people.

Twenty-two months from now, we will be listening to someone else.

G-d be with him (see I can repent)

3000 people dead in almost 4 years. In a warzone. its a war people, you're going to get casualties. If the bloody media wasnt so controlled by leftists then it wouldnt be an issue!

To leave iraq now would be disastrous. Shia majority. think about it, where else is there a massive shia majority in the ME, who also wants to cause the US and the western world as much heartache as possible? now think... do they share a border? :yep: And does iraq currently act as a buffer between this other shia nation and israel, which it has sworn to destroy?:yep:

Konovalov said best bet is for 3 seperate states. that wouldnt work for 2 reasons, attractive as it is. 1, you'd get turkey moving against the kurds in the north.

2, you'll get big persian Shia nation moving into iraq from the east, linking up with shias in iraq. they dont like sunnis much, so they'll kill em. now you got a ME superpower butting heads against turkey (support from NATO? unlikely, europe is too pacifist). lots of resources, now sharing a border with israel, which they swore to destroy.

but to move against israel would provoke america. simple solution - close the strait of hormuz. bugger it they say, lets wipe the infidel from the ME and drive south into Saudi and Kuwait, Yemen and Oman will support this as well. Now America cant support Israel because the oil is cut off. Israel gone, not before dropping a couple of nukes and contaminating some ground. 'oh we need living space, where shall we go?' says this new supernation, and hey look, theres a whole lot of muslim nations to the NE as well - lets join up with them. bugger it they say, we're almost all the way to Indonesia the worlds largest muslim country, lets go that extra step.

Now, they can say 'hey guys, we sit on the most important trade routes in the world and we're big, what ya gonna do about it?'

to which the response will be war. a vicious, bloody, nasty war that will take probably millions of lives.


**********************
Mock me if you will, but that scenario is a lot more likely than most people will probably care to think. You people calling for troops to leave Iraq need to think about the consequences of such an action..

Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?
 

I think that 20.000 well trained soldiers can make a hell of a difference, if they're 'lean and mean' and concentrated in one area (Baghdad).
I get the impression that after pacification instant financial support will be given for economic recovery. If this is done on a small scale and a local level it might win the 'hearts and minds' of the population.
The trick is to show the Iraqi's that there can be a future worth living for (and participating in).

At least the President gave a signal that he's not going to let the US forces go hightailing back to the States. The Iraqi's might understand that they get at least one more chance. And well, a new attitude throughout the chain of command might just work.

Answer to Konovalov: some reason for cautious optimism, if the participants don't blow it the next few months.

I can't understand wishywashy people....Iraq should have been crushed like a can in the first year...those who can't play nice ,if if it was deemed impossible that they can play nice, then seperation was the only solution...dang it is ridiclous.

As the conquerer im sorry but these choices should not have been left for the conquered to decided...they proved they did not have a handle on things to let Saddam stay in power so long...now there is too much bad blood for them EVER to get along it is preposterous...it boggles my mind.

The 20,000 troops should be used to prepare the new divided country up and start herding people to they're respective new homes....tough crap it is not a choice to give them it should be done for them...pick a place and go live there...then they can fight each other from they're respective strongholds...let em fight for the oil and land after that ...try to strike some balance between them and maybe then they will stop killing each other if they believe they have what they want...

If not then save my brothers in arms lives and bring them ALL home tommorrow.

The only solution is Christ.

:huh: There was a speech last night? :huh:

I must have been in bed.

Oh well... Im sure things will be handled one way or the other.

Glad I am atheist! :o

I or so have mixed feelings about this but as the old saying goes sit back watch and wait, we should see some sort of result in six months to a year.

The trick is achieving pacification. Which I frankly don't think is possible.

PD

What the......lol.


Oh wait...... blooooody hell he really means it serious. :huh:

That man is totally disconnected from reality, and he wants to leave the burden of declare defeat to his sucessor. for that he accepts to increase the number of American soldiers being killed or menally, physically crippled. Great leader, that man, and so wise.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459353,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459369,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459048,00.html

Bush not only rejected the plan of the Baker commission, and polls saying that 60-70% of Americans do not want to see additional troops being sent, he also ignores much of the new counterinsurgency doctrine developed by Gen. Patraeus who has taken command (or will be taking command soon) in Iraq. I already have reported on him some weeks ago:

"The US military is learning from it's mistakes in Iraq:"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455165,00.html
Interview with Gen. David Petraeus:
"We have to raise our sights beyond the range of an M-16"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455199,00.html

The BBC now had these remarks on the man some days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6249565.stm

Let none say you aren't a ray of sunshine Skybird.:D

Ok, so, what is better... staying in Iraq and trying to sort out the mess (which yes, is caused by stupidity earlier on in the conflict) or letting go and seeing, as i said before, a massive regional conflict that will drastically impact on the worlds economy (even you, you pacifist europeans!) and has a good chance of ultimately resulting in again as i said before, the use of nuclear weapons again..

honestly, whats better?!

Oh and Sky, mate, you post something that is telling about the next few years. Where you posted the article about America learning from its mistakes in Iraq, that is because no longer does the US army or marines (or any other western country's forces) need to fight column after column of MBTs. This next half century of warfare will be technology fighting against wave after wave of demented, fanatics - and lord knows, its gonna become very very bloody.